FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11555 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 96 -000 25 -C R -1-H L M -4 G A R Y W I L L I A M H O L T , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 1, 2007)2

B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F eder al pri soner G ary W i l l i am H ol t , proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s ( a ) di s m i s s a l of

hi s “ M ot i on F orD i s tr i c tC our tT o E xe r c i s e I t s I nhe r e nt Au th o r i ty T o R e c a l l A Ju d g m e n tT o Ac h i e v e J u s t i c e An d / OrT o P r e v e n tAn I nj us t i c e ( G ood C aus e A nd E xtr a or di na ry C i r c um s t a nc e s ) ” ( he r e i na f t e r“ M ot i on T o R e c a l l ” ) a s as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e , a nd ( b) de ni a l of hi s “ M ot i on T o V a c a t e O r de rO f M a r c h 27, 2007 A nd T o R e he a rM ot i on Fo rDi s tr i c tCo u r tTo Ex e r c i s e I t s I n h e r e n tAu th o r i ty To Re c a l l J u d g me n tTo A c hi e ve J us t i c e A nd/ O rP r e ve ntA n I nj us t i c e ” ( he r e i na f t e r“ M ot i on F or R e c o n s id e r a tio n ” ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d H o lt ac e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility to c o n t e s tth e d e n i a l o f

b o th m o t i o n s . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e d e r a l ju ry c o n v ic te d H o lt in 1 9 9 7 a n dh e d ir e c tly ap p e a le d h is conv i ct i on , w hi ch w e a ff i rm ed, U ni t ed S t at es v. H ol t , 14 9 F . 3d 11 96 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) . Th e Su p r e me Co u r td e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i . H o l tv . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 2 7 U . S. 1028, 119 S . C t . 2380 ( 1999) . I n 2000, H ol tf i l e d am ot i on c ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c ki ng hi s c onvi c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d H ol t ’ s § 2255 m o tio n a n d h e d id n o t ap p e a l. I n s te a d , h e f ile d am o tio n f

o raw r it o f

a u d itaq u e r la3

i n 2 00 4 w hi ch w as agai n d eni ed by the di stri ctcourt . H e app ea l ed the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e n ia l to u s a n d w e a f f irm e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . H o lt, 4 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e f ound the m ot i on ba rr e d a s as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve m o tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 th a t la c k e d p r io rp e rm is s io n to f ile f r o m u s in v i o l a t i o n o f

th e An t i t e rr o r i s m a n d Ef f e c t i v e De a th Pe n a l ty Ac to f 1 9 9 6 , Pub . L. N o . 1 0 4 - 1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . H o lt, 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 5 ( c itin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ; § 2 2 5 5 ; § 2 2 4 4 ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of both m ot i ons be c aus e the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d A ppe l l a ntH ol tac e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on b o th m o tio n s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 . W e w ill a d d r e s s th e m o tio n s in tu rn . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M o tio n T o R e c a ll W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of a§ 2255 m ot i on a s s e c ond o rs u c c e s s iv e . M c I v e rv . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W hi l e H ol tcont ends thathi s M ot i on t o R ec al l i s nota § 22 55 m ot i on , fe dera l co u rt s “ h av e an o b l i g at i o n t o l o o kb eh i n d th e l ab el o f a m o t i o n fi l ed b y a p ro se i nm a t e a nd de t e rm i ne w he the rthe m ot i on i s , i n e f f e c t , c ogni z abl e unde radi f f e r e nt r e m e di a l s t a tut ory f

r a m e w ork, ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or da n, 915 F . 2d 622, 624- 254

(11th C i r. 19 90 ) ( af

fi rm i ng a di stri ctcourtorder w hi ch tre at ed a m ot i on fi l ed un der F e d e r a l R u le o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 ( a ) a s as u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e te rm in e d th a t H o lt’s M o tio n T o R e c a ll w a s in r e a lity as u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . H o lt in s is ts in h is r e p ly b r ie f th a t h is M o tio n to R e c a l l i s nota§ 2255 m ot i on but“ one of j ur i s di c t i ona l c ha r a c t e r ” ori n the a l t e rna t i ve , avi ol a t i on of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , A ppe l l a nt ’ s R e pl y B r . a t2, 3, y e t b o th a r g u m e n ts f

a ll w ith in § 2 2 5 5 's a m b it: A pr i s one ri n cus t ody unde rs e nt e nc e of ac our te s t abl i s he d by A c tof C o n g res s c l a i m i ng the r i ghtt o be r e l e a s e d upon the gr ound that the s e nte nc e w as i m

p os e d i n v i olat i on of

the C ons t i tut i on orlaw s of the U n ite d S ta tes, o r th a t

th e co u rt

w a s w i th o u t

j u risd i ct i o n to i m

p o se such se nt ence , or tha t the s e nt e nc e w a s i n e xc e s s of t h e m ax i m um autho ri ze d b y l aw , or i s otherw i se subj ec tt o col l at er al att ac k, m ay m o v e the c our tw hi c h i m pos e d the s e nt e nc e t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de or corr ec tthe se nt ence . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ¶ 1 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . I n a d d itio n to th e j u r i s d i c t io n a l a n d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , H o lt a ls o a r g u e d in h is M o tio n to R e c a ll th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e ta in e d b r o a d in h e r e n t a u t h o r i ty to re ca l l a n i mpos e d s e nt e nc e . W e r e j e c t e d apr i s on e r ’ s a r gu me nttha tthe di s t ri ct c our tha d i nhe r e ntauthor i ty t o r e s e nt e nc e hi m i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z - C l a rk, 292 F . 3d 13 10 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). W e s t at ed thata di stri ctcourtcoul d m od i fya s ent ence o n l y thr ough F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 35, or“ t o the e xt e ntothe rw i se e x p r e s s ly p e rm itte d b y s ta tu t e . ” I d . a t 1 3 1 5 - 1 6 ( q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ) . A5

di s tr i c tc our tonl y r e t a i ns j ur i s di c t i on t o m odi f y as e nt e nc e on ade f

e nda nt ’ s m ot i on f ors e ve n da y s a f

t e r t h e i m pos i t i on of

s e nt e nc e . R ul e 35( a ) ; D i a z - C l a rk, 292 F . 3d at13 17 . T he no t es t o the 19 91 A m endm ent s t o R ul e 35 exp l i ci t l y co n tem p lat e that ade f e nda ntde t a i ne d pur s ua ntt o an i l l ega l s e nt e nc e “ c oul d s e e k r e l i e f unde r28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 i f the se ven d ay peri od prov i ded i n [R ul e 35(a)] has e l apse d. ” I d. at 13 16 (quo t i ng R ul e 35 adv i soryco m m i tt ee no t es (199 1)). O ur op i ni on i n D i az C l ark m akes cl ea r thata di stri ctcour t’ s au thori ty t o m od i fya c urre ntcr i m i nal s e nt e nc e i s r e s tr i c t e d t o R ul e 35 or§ 2255. B e c aus e the s e ve n- day pe r i od f or m od i fy i ng a s ent ence h ad elapse d h er e, § 2 25 5 w as the on l y a vai l abl e s t atut ory basi s f or the re l i ef

soug htby H ol t . O ur 20 05 H ol top i ni on m ade c l ea r that c o m m o n la w r e lie f

is n o t a v a ilab le w h e r e p o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f is a v a ilab le thr ough § 2255 a s i ti s he r e . H ol t , 417 F . 3d a t1175. T h erefo re H o l t ’ s onl y a ve nue o f r e lie f f o rth e s e c la im s is th r o u g h § 2 2 5 5 , w h ic h e n c o m p a s s e s a ll o f h is a r g u m e n ts . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope rl y c ons true d H ol t ’ s M ot i on T o R e c a l l a s a§ 2255 m ot i o n . B eca us e H ol tha d notr e c e i ve d pr i orauthor i z a t i on f r om us unde r28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(b)(3)(A ), the di stri ctcourtprop er l y deter m i ned thati tl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der ase cond or succ es si ve § 2 25 5 m o t i on . S ee H i l l v. H op per, 112 F . 3d 1088, 1089 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A cco rd i n gl y , w e a f f i rm the6

d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd is m is s in g H o lt’s M o tio n T o R e c a ll. B . M ot i on F orR e c ons i de r a t i on B e c aus e H ol t ’ s M ot i on F orR e c ons i de r a t i on w a s f i l e d w i thi n 10 da y s of

the d is tr ic tc o u r t’s M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r , w e c o n s tru e it a s aF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 59( e ) m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd j udgm e nt . M a hon e v . R a y , 326 F . 3d 1176, 117 8 n . 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Fi n c h v . Ci ty o f V e rn o n , 8 4 5 F. 2 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 - 59 (11th C i r. 19 88 ) ( per c uri am ). W e r ev ie w the deni al of R ul e 59(e) mo t i on for a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . D r a g o v . J e n n e , 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . R u le 59 (e ) m ay n o t b e u se d “ t o rel i t i gat e ol d m att er s, ra i se ar gu m entor pres entevi dence tha tc oul d ha ve be e n r a i s ed p ri o r t o the e ntry of j udgm e nt . ” M i c ha e l L i ne t , I nc . v. V illa g e o f

W e llin g to n , F la ., 4 0 8 F .3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H ol t d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e th e d e n i a l o f h i s M o t i o n Fo r Re c o n s i d e r a t i o n on appeal . Inst ea d, he ar gu es thatthe ori gi nal 1 9 9 7 se n ten ci ng order i s the order w hi c h sh o u l d be r e c ons i de r e d. A ppe l l a nt ’ s R e pl y B r . a t2, 3. T hi s a r gum e nt s ubs t a n t i v e l y tr a c k s th e p o i n t s h e ma k e s i n h i s M o t i o n t o Re c a l l , b u tdoe s not ad d ress the M ot i on f

orR e c ons i de r a t i on. A s H ol tha s nota r gue d hi s c l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tdi d notr e c ons i de ri t s 2007 or de r , he aba ndone d a ny a r gum e ntc hal l en g i n g t h e de ni a l of thi s m ot i on on appe a l . R ow e v. S c h r e ib e r , 1 3 9 F .3 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 2 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .7

E ve n w e r e w e t o c ons true H ol t ’ s br i e f s o l i be r a l l y tha tw e i gnor e d the ab an d o n m en tof

hi s c l a i m on appe a l , the di s tr i c tc our ts t i l l di d note rri n de ny i ng t he M o t i o n Fo r Re c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r tw o i n d e p e n d e n t r e a s o n s . Se e H a i n e s v. K erner, 40 4 U . S . 51 9, 52 0-21 , 92 S .C t. 5 9 4 , 5 96 (197 2) (percuri am ) ( no t i ng that c ourt s s houl d l i be r a l l yc ons true the m ot i ons of pr o s e pe t i t i one r s ) ; a nd C a s tr o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 540 U . S . 37 5 , 3 8 1 - 82, 124 S . C t . 786, 791- 92 ( 2003) ( l i s t i ng r e a s ons f orl i be r a l tr e a tm e ntof

pr o se p l e a di ngs ) . F i r s t , H ol t ’ s M ot i on F orR e c ons i de r a t i on i mp r o p e r l y r e a r g u e d p r i o ra r gu me nt s a n d r e c y c l e d c a s e s c i t e d i n h i s M o t i o n To R e c a l l . M i c ha e l L i ne t , I nc . , 408 F . 3d a t763. S e c ond, i n l i g h tof ourbi ndi ng p reced en ti n D i az-C l ark , i tcan n o tb e sai d th atth e d i stri ctco u rt c o m m itte d an ab u se of di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the M ot i on T o R ec al l , w hi ch w as base d o n the theory of a di stri ctcourt ’ s i nh er entpo w erdi sc usse d i n a N i nth C i rc ui tca se and a di stri ctcourt c ase. C arri ngt on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 470 F . 3d 920 ( 9th C i r . 2006) w i thdr a w n a nd s upe r s e de d, – F . 3 d

– , 2 0 0 7 W L 2597326 ( 9th C i r . S e pt . 11, 2007) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H o lla n d , 3 8 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 6 4 ( N .D . A la . 2 0 0 5 ) . S in c e H o lt f a i l e d t o s h o w ab a s is f orr e l i e f unde rR ul e 5 9 ( e ) , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s M ot i on F orR e c ons i de r a t i on. F in a lly , w e lib e r a ll y c o n s tru e H o lt’s ap p e lla te b r ie f a s a n im p lie d p e titio n to f i l e as e c ond § 2255 m ot i on. W a s hi ngt on v. U ni t e d S t at es , 173 F e d. A ppx. 792,8

794- 9 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ; s e e H a i n e s 4 0 4 U . S. a t5 2 0 , 9 2 S. Ct . a t5 96. T o g r a n t H o lt le a v e to f ile as e c o n d § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n h e m u s t m a k e ap r im af a c ie show i ng of ei ther: ( 1) new l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e tha t , i f pr ove n a nd vi e w e d i n l i ghtof the e vi de nc e a s aw hol e , w ou l d b e su ff i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tno r e a s onabl e f a ct fi nde rw oul d ha ve f ound the m ova ntgui l ty of

the of f e ns e [ a ttr i a l ] ; or ( 2) ane w ru l e o f cons t i tut i ona l l a w , m a de r e tr oa c t i ve t o c a s e s on c o lla te r a l r e v ie w b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, th a t w a s p r e v io u s ly un avai l abl e. 28 U . S . C . § 2255; § 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; § 2244( b) ( 3) ( C ) ; s e e I n r e A nderso n, 396 F . 3d 13 36 , 13 37 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( desc ri bi ng constra i nt s pl ac ed o n succe ss i ve habeas p e titio n s ) . H o lt’s a r g u m e n t s d o n o ts a tis f y e ith e ro f

th e tw o r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rth is courtt o g ra nta c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi li ty(“ C O A ”) . H ol tal l eges no new evi dence w hi c h w oul d ha ve i m pa c t e d hi s gui l ta ttr i a l . H ol tc i t e s no ne w rul e of c o n s titu tio n a l la w m a d e r e t r o a c t iv e b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t w h ic h w o u ld a s s is t h is c a s e , n o r h a v e we f

o u n d a n y u p o n c a r e f

u l r e v i e w. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y aC OA o n th e i ssu es H o l th as rai sed i n th e d i stri ctco u rtan d b efo re u s. T h e r e f o r e , w e a ff

irm b o th d istrict co u rt o rd er s o n ap p ea l an d d en y H o lt ’s im p lie d r e q u e s t f

o rau th o r iz a tio n to f

ile as u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n . AF F I RME D.